Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Odom v. Atlantic Oil Producing Co., 110 So. 754.

25 citing documents.

Lescuer v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. 552 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Berkel v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 462 So. 2d 1287 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
As stated in our early decision in Odom [ v. Atlantic Oil Producing Co., , 110 So.
Edwards v. Hartford Ins. Co. 445 So. 2d 499 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Jenkins v. Orleans Parish School Board 310 So. 2d 831 La. 1975
1st Cir. 1968), which cited the earlier jurisprudence; , 110 So.
Jenkins v. Orleans Parish School Board 299 So. 2d 535 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Manuel ex rel. Manuel v. Travelers Insurance Co. 245 So. 2d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Eaves v. Louisiana Cypress Lumber Co. 208 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
tion as is reasonable and as in proportion to the compensation hereinabove specifically provided in the cases of specific disability, not to exceed sixty-five per centum of wages during one hundred weeks.” The question of workmen’s compensation awards for the loss of teeth has been considered by the courts of this state in several cases including the following: , 110 So.
Golden v. Starns-McConnell Lumber Corp. 172 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Fruge v. Hub City Iron Works, Inc., supra; , 110 So.
Babineaux v. Great American Insurance Company 160 So. 2d 591 La. 1964
Fruge v. Hub City Iron Works, Inc. 131 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Evans v. Louisiana State Board of Education 85 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
The defendant’s , 110 So.
Dronet v. American Mut. Liability Ins. 69 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
In order to determine a proper award in this case, we have reviewed the following cases: , 110 So.
MacAluso v. Schill-Wolfson, Inc. 56 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
These cases are: , 110 So.
Jones v. New Orleans Furniture Mfg. Co. 17 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
Goins v. Shreveport Yellow Cabs, Inc. 200 So. 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1941
Spillers v. Jonesboro Gin Co. 193 So. 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1939
Of course, we realize that our holding herein appears to be in conflict with the decision of the Supreme Court in Odom v. *511 Atlantic Oil Producing Co., , 110 So.
Sadler v. May Bros. 185 So. 81 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1938
Ellis v. Gullett Gin Co. 182 So. 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
In our opinion, , 110 So.
Camet v. &198tna Ins. Co. 175 So. 152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
Hall v. Southern Advance Bag & Paper Co. 158 So. 829 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
Franklin v. Louisiana Highway Commission 152 So. 604 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1934
Gill v. Gullett Gin Co. 147 So. 517 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Davis v. Waterbury's, Inc. 145 So. 569 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
559 , , our Supreme Court held that the loss of three lower front teeth is a serious permanent disfigurement and is a serious permanent impairment of a physical function.
Smith v. L. H. Gilmer Co. 123 So. 451 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
In Odom vs. Atlantic Oil Producing Co., , 110 So.
Rodriguez v. Standard Oil Co. 117 So. 269 La. 1928